What? I never suggested this.

> The first amendment protects people’s rights to shill for China in exchange for $$$. That’s what freedom of speech actually means.

Right. And China discovered this fitness gradient.

Luckily we can use taxes on negative externalities to adjust for the damage that is being done.

I'm suggesting that we tax all business activities in China because China has shown themselves to be an enemy of the West and of democracy. They pose an existential threat to both and we should begin taking additional measures to protect and secure our interests.

I'm not saying we tax pro-China messages or force companies to produce anti-Chinese sentiment. Don't reframe this as a free speech argument.

China has a demand for western media, and they cede small amounts of control when they let our messaging and culture reach them. By economically disincentivizing the creation of specialized media that is custom-tailored for consumption by the Chinese market, they are left with true and unfettered western culture. A culture that flies in the face of fascist narratives.

No one goes out of their way to create pro-Chinese media if there isn't something in it for them.

> Disincentivize this blatant attack on of our freedom of speech.

I'll quote you right here since you keep insisting you're not talking about free speech.

> Games are not permitted to promote LGBT acceptance.

I see lots of games that have LGBT characters. Isn't that what the Gamer Gaters keep whining about? That companies keep "virtue signaling" by pandering to minority groups?

But China isn't the only regressive society in the world. Corporations also sometimes avoid overtly endorsing progressive perspectives to avoid offending domestic conservatives. Should we also tax business activity in Alabama so companies aren't afraid to make LGBT-friendly games to cater to red states? The government isn't in the business of deciding which speech should be discouraged and which should be encouraged.

> China should not be able to control society outside of its own walls.

If you choose not to consume certain pieces of foreign media because you disagree with its philosophy or some other part of it are you also violating their country's sovereignty? E.g. if you decide not to read Harry Potter because the British slang confuses you, are you committing an unethical act by unduly pressuring British publishers to produce more America-friendly content?

> They are left with true and unfettered western culture. A culture that flies in the face of fascist narratives.

So much to unpack here